I was wondering how the company could get obliterated by a strike, but then I noticed that they were already bankrupt. I certainly believe that labor could be a significant factor in that but seriously, journalists, could any detail whatsoever be gleaned from either party before going to print?

When the CEOs and the board of directors start driving Ford Festivas, then I'll feel bad for the company.

" Hostess Brands announced last week it would roll back the pay raises it gave top managers in July 2011 prior to the company's filing for Chapter 11 this past January. While it was boosting managers' pay, Hostess eliminated its 401(k) match for rank-and-file workers and laid off 10 percent of the workforce, according the New York Post."

So they screwed the workers and gave themselves raises. So now you have a workforce that is bitter and has low morale. hmmm...I wonder why they are going under

Gunderson:When the CEOs and the board of directors start driving Ford Festivas, then I'll feel bad for the company.

" Hostess Brands announced last week it would roll back the pay raises it gave top managers in July 2011 prior to the company's filing for Chapter 11 this past January. While it was boosting managers' pay, Hostess eliminated its 401(k) match for rank-and-file workers and laid off 10 percent of the workforce, according the New York Post."

So they screwed the workers and gave themselves raises. So now you have a workforce that is bitter and has low morale. hmmm...I wonder why they are going under

Dude, didn't you get the "Unions are evil and we want the rich to get richer and workers should be thankful they're getting any scraps at all because we're racing China to the bottom" memo?

At the company my Mom works for one of the plants kept going on strike and/or threating to go on strike for the last couple years over pay/benifits. Company finally just shut the plant down because they didn't want to deal with it anymore and everyone lost their jobs. So congratulations. Now instead of having a job with both decent pay and benifits, (Mom said it was 15-20 ish an hour + insurance)you now all have NO job and NO benifits. Of course the union tried to reverse it's position after the company announced it was closing the plant but then it was already too late.

Union defenders are so hilarious. They ask business to pay more for workers but often go bargain hunting for goods. Vote to buy only union made if you dare. That means flying American airlines over southwest. Stop being hypocrites.

MyRandomName:Union defenders are so hilarious. They ask business to pay more for workers but often go bargain hunting for goods. Vote to buy only union made if you dare. That means flying American airlines over southwest. Stop being hypocrites.

I deeply wish that union supporters would do such. But they seriously can't be bothered.

" Hostess Brands announced last week it would roll back the pay raises it gave top managers in July 2011 prior to the company's filing for Chapter 11 this past January. While it was boosting managers' pay, Hostess eliminated its 401(k) match for rank-and-file workers and laid off 10 percent of the workforce, according the New York Post."

Stop second guessing the job creators in our great society.

Unions should stop using class warfare to break companies.

/Seriously hostess, the premier creamy snack-cake goodness company. Although I miss the aluminium foil on the ho-ho's.

HotWingConspiracy:Or they can just avail themselves of their rights and do what they're doing now.

Yes, but they run the risk of management pulling the plug on the whole operation. Let's not forget that the company is in banko. They could probably get a pretty good deal on it. Then they can jack wages and benefits as high as they want and lead the company into the future!

Yep. For absolutely no reason whatsoever. It never has anything to do with the policies of people running the company, it's those darn unions!

The policy is; if you don't like it here, go somewhere else.

That's the whole point of unions.

In a nation where there is even 1% unemployment, assuming the government doesn't care for the unemployed, at a certain point, no matter how badly workers are treated, and how low the wages are, "Somewhere Else" equates to "starve" or "DIAF."

The only way to get employers to consider the needs of the workers is to refuse to work when they aren't being considered. But that doesn't work if there is another guy (or immigrant) who has been out of work for the last half year and is willing to debase himself even further to survive.

The whole supposed concept of this country is that there is some kind of upward mobility for those willing to work at it.

But if you can't get the wages (or time off) to invest in an education or your own business (or if your business is shut down by the government as unliscenced, etc.), if there's no real chance of raises or promotion, if your health is endangered by the work, and you don't get proper coverage, etc. etc. that concept isn't worth a damn.

Is every move by every union a good one? No. Of course not. There wouldn't be jokes about union breaks and wages and such if they were.

But unions would've never come into existence if employers could be trusted to give a damn.

/Not in a union//Could join one now for $3,000///Don't have it////Would only keep me from working//"Right-to-work" State//Slashies

MyRandomName:Union defenders are so hilarious. They ask business to pay more for workers but often go bargain hunting for goods. Vote to buy only union made if you dare. That means flying American airlines over southwest. Stop being hypocrites.

Yep. For absolutely no reason whatsoever. It never has anything to do with the policies of people running the company, it's those darn unions!

The policy is; if you don't like it here, go somewhere else.

That's the whole point of unions.

In a nation where there is even 1% unemployment, assuming the government doesn't care for the unemployed, at a certain point, no matter how badly workers are treated, and how low the wages are, "Somewhere Else" equates to "starve" or "DIAF."

The only way to get employers to consider the needs of the workers is to refuse to work when they aren't being considered. But that doesn't work if there is another guy (or immigrant) who has been out of work for the last half year and is willing to debase himself even further to survive.

The whole supposed concept of this country is that there is some kind of upward mobility for those willing to work at it.

But if you can't get the wages (or time off) to invest in an education or your own business (or if your business is shut down by the government as unliscenced, etc.), if there's no real chance of raises or promotion, if your health is endangered by the work, and you don't get proper coverage, etc. etc. that concept isn't worth a damn.

Is every move by every union a good one? No. Of course not. There wouldn't be jokes about union breaks and wages and such if they were.

But unions would've never come into existence if employers could be trusted to give a damn.

/Not in a union//Could join one now for $3,000///Don't have it////Would only keep me from working//"Right-to-work" State//Slashies

My dad's union strike eventually cost him his job. The local couldn't reach an agreement with their employer. The strike lasted so long that the union pulled their support and all the local workers were eventually laid off. I partly attribute my parents' divorce to this.

Yep. For absolutely no reason whatsoever. It never has anything to do with the policies of people running the company, it's those darn unions!

The policy is; if you don't like it here, go somewhere else.

That's the whole point of unions.

In a nation where there is even 1% unemployment, assuming the government doesn't care for the unemployed, at a certain point, no matter how badly workers are treated, and how low the wages are, "Somewhere Else" equates to "starve" or "DIAF."

The only way to get employers to consider the needs of the workers is to refuse to work when they aren't being considered. But that doesn't work if there is another guy (or immigrant) who has been out of work for the last half year and is willing to debase himself even further to survive.

The whole supposed concept of this country is that there is some kind of upward mobility for those willing to work at it.

But if you can't get the wages (or time off) to invest in an education or your own business (or if your business is shut down by the government as unliscenced, etc.), if there's no real chance of raises or promotion, if your health is endangered by the work, and you don't get proper coverage, etc. etc. that concept isn't worth a damn.

Is every move by every union a good one? No. Of course not. There wouldn't be jokes about union breaks and wages and such if they were.

But unions would've never come into existence if employers could be trusted to give a damn.

/Not in a union//Could join one now for $3,000///Don't have it////Would only keep me from working//"Right-to-work" State//Slashies

Of course, if there are more open jobs than available workers, then the balance of power shifts as businesses have to compete for the available labor, driving up wages and benefits.

So, without unions, if you are a worker with shiatty prospects, you should quit, and then systematically murder everyone who takes your old job until no one will work there, so you can swoop back in and take it at a higher wage.

(On a macro scale, all workers should go all Battle Royale on each other until there aren't enough left to do all the work.)